No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched
keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and
yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves
about their various concerns they were scrutinised and
studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a
microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that
swarm and multiply in a prop of water. With infinite
complacency men went to and fro over this globe about
their little affairs, serene in their assurance of their empire
over matter. It is possible that the infusoria under the
microscope do the same. No one gave a thought to the
older worlds of space as sources of human danger, or
thought of them only to dismiss the idea of life upon them
as impossible or improbable. It is curious to recall some of
the mental habits of those departed days. At most
terrestrial men fancied there might be other men upon
Mars, perhaps inferior to themselves and ready to
welcome a missionary enterprise. Yet across the gulf of
space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of
the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and
unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes, and
slowly and surely drew their plans against us. And early in
the twentieth century came the great disillusionment.
-H. G. Wells, The War of the Worlds, 1898
How does the opening paragraph of The War of the Worlds create suspense?
A. By telling the reader the Martians' plan from the beginning
B. By giving hints about events in the story that have already
happened
C. By giving the reader clues about how the aliens are defeated
D. By telling the reader that the narrator will survive the attack

Read the excerpt from elie wiesel’s all rivers run to the sea. why were those trains allowed to roll unhindered into poland? why were the tracks leading to birkenau never bombed? i have put these questions to american presidents and generals and to high-ranking soviet officers. since moscow and washington knew what the killers were doing in the death camps, why was nothing done at least to slow down their “production”? that not a single allied military aircraft ever tried to destroy the rail lines converging on auschwitz remains an outrageous enigma to me. birkenau was “processing” ten thousand jews a day. stopping a single convoy for a single night—or even for just a few hours—would have prolonged so many lives. based on the paragraph, the author would most likely agree that it is best to avoid confrontation at all costs. people need to be proactive when they witness an injustice. countries should remain neutral to keep alliances strong. moscow and washington are to be blamed for the holocaust.

Plagiarism quiz read both the paragraph below and the information following it that identifies the source using the american psychological association format. then read each of the numbered statements and determine if each is plagiarized or not. circle “yes” if the statement is plagiarized, “no” if it is not, and then fix the “yes” answers). original source the presence of the taiwanese on everest was a matter of grave concern to most of the other expeditions on the mountain. there was a very real fear that the taiwanese would suffer a calamity that would compel other expeditions to come to their aid, risking further lives, to say nothing of jeopardizing the opportunity for other climbers to reach the summit. but the taiwanese were by no means the only group that seemed egregiously unqualified. camped beside us at base camp was a twenty-five-year-old norwegian climber named peter neby, who announced his intention to make a solo ascent of the southwest face, one of the peak’s most dangerous and technically demanding routes—despite the fact that his himalayan experience was limited to two ascents of neighboring island peak, a 20,274-foot bump that required little more than vigorous walking. krakauer, j. (1998). into thin air: a personal account of the mount everest disaster. new york: anchor books, 122 - 3. student samples yes 1. there was a very real fear that the taiwanese would suffer a calamity that would compel other expeditions to come to their aid(krakauer, 1998). no) 2. many climbers overestimate their abilities, as krakauer (1998) explains when he writes of peter neby, whose himalayan experience in the past “required little more than vigorous walking” (122 - 3). no 3. jon krakauer (1998) discusses other concerns besides those of unpredictable weather and his own climbing group’s capabilities. for example the existence of a taiwanese group on everest was a matter of serious unease to most everyone else on the mountain. yes/no 4. krakauer (1998) states that the taiwanese group was not the only inexpert climbers to attempt mt. everest: camped beside us at base camp was a twenty-five-year-old norwegian climber named peter neby. . [whose] himalayan experience was limited to two ascents of neighboring island peak, a 20,274-foot bump that required little more than vigorous walking (122 – 3). yes/no 5. the author asserts that the taiwanese “were by no means the only group that seemed egregiously unqualified.” yes/no 6. in his book into thin air, jon krakauer (1998) discusses many of the dangers he noted prior to his disastrous attempt to climb mt. everest in 1996. among them were encounters with other groups and individual climbers who were ill-trained and ill-equipped to handle the demands of such a climb.

Me for the love of god. i've been working on this assignment for 3 days and i don't understand the speeches at all ive read both 4 times over and i don't understand either of them if your right i will give you brainlest (i think that's how you spell it) and 99 pts. for this assignment, you will write an evaluation of either of two historic passages. • patrick henry’s “give me liberty, or give me death! ” speech (1775) • frederick douglass’s address, “what to the slave is the fourth of july? ” (1852) 1. what is the speaker’s viewpoint? what is his claim? type your answer here. (score for question 2: of 2 points) 2. what reasons does the speaker provide to support his viewpoint or claim? type your answer here. (score for question 3: of 4 points) 3. how valid are the speaker’s reasons for his claim? use evidence from the text to support your answer. type your answer here. (score for question 4: of 2 points) 4. what evidence does the speaker provide to support his reasons? type your answer here. (score for question 5: of 4 points) 5. is the speaker’s evidence relevant and sufficient? use evidence from the text to support your answer. type your answer here. (score for question 6: of 4 points) 6. does the speaker use fallacious reasoning or logical fallacies? use evidence from the text to support your answers. type your answer here. (score for question 7: of 4 points) 7. what counterclaims or alternate claims does the speaker address, and how does he respond to them? type your answer here. (score for question 8: of 4 points) 8. how effective is the speaker’s response to counterclaims or alternate claims? use evidence from the text to support your answer. type your answer here. (score for question 9: of 4 points) 9. write a one-paragraph evaluation of the speaker’s argument. type your answer here.